- From: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 13:18:10 +0000
- To: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
- CC: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, "Silvia Pfieffer" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, "public-texttracks@w3.org" <public-texttracks@w3.org>
On 24/09/2015 11:29, "Philip Jägenstedt" <philipj@opera.com> wrote: >On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 11:36 AM, Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk> >wrote: >> On 24/09/2015 10:02, "Philip Jägenstedt" <philipj@opera.com> wrote: >> >>>On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk> >>>wrote: >>>> On 24/09/2015 00:06, "singer@apple.com on behalf of David Singer" >>>> <singer@apple.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>I’m fine with >>>>>* moving to more modern pub tools (Echidna) >>>>>* using Github issues rather than Bugzilla (even though I find github >>>>>issues/bug/conversations much harder to follow) >>>>>* moving to github and away from e.g. CVS >>>>> >>>>>It does seem…odd…to be in the whatwg part of github and not the >>>>>general >>>>>W3C part. Not sure I follow this. >>>> >>>> +1. It's confusing and unhelpful. >>> >>>I am no longer one of the editors, but I definitely support hosting >>>WebVTT at the WHATWG. Both because of saner infrastructure (the >>>dev.w3.org/html5/webvtt/ setup involved PhantomJS and CVS on my >>>private VPS) >> >> A github/w3c infrastructure would be fine also, right? > >Yes, I'm sure that could have been made to work. Then that should be the first choice for TTCG in my opinion. > >>> and because the text track model which WebVTT extends is >>>part of HTML, maintained by the WHATWG. >> >> Irrelevant in my opinion. There are many HTML extensions managed by a >> variety of groups. If WHATWG thinks they need to control/manage/maintain >> every extension to HTML then they will be a bottleneck. Better to target >> specific work in specific groups, like this one. > >I think that this group will continue to operate as usual. > >At the end of the day, we needed to move away from dev.w3.org, and >hosting at the WHATWG is just fine. -1: hosting should be by W3C or github/w3c for a W3C CG. > I can't really see that there >would be any genuine confusion about how to contribute once everything >is in order. > >Philip
Received on Thursday, 24 September 2015 13:18:48 UTC